2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

A. On April 23, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, with the deposit of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million, and the period from May 20, 2013 to May 19, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate-proof mail stating that the renewal of the instant lease agreement is impossible, and on May 19, 2015, the period of the renewal expires, the Plaintiff sent the instant building to the Defendant. The said mail reached the Defendant around that time.

C. From the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement to the present day, the Defendant is operating a restaurant in the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease contract was terminated on May 19, 2015, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the renewal of the lease contract of this case is required pursuant to Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

If the amount of the deposit and monthly rent under the instant lease agreement recognized earlier is calculated pursuant to Article 2 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25036, Dec. 30, 2013), the conversion deposit of the instant lease agreement is KRW 390,000 (= KRW 40 million) and the said Act does not apply to the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.